EM would design the weather for the housing stock whereas most of us design our housing stock according to the weather. If the climate ever changes, so will the houses and the selection of building technology used to make them. So long as we have dispatchable power we can adapt to the environment.

EM in climates with extreme variations, say between frigid winters and very hot summers, housing usually reflects the more extreme or damaging season (you mentioned steep roofed houses to shed winter snow, roofs that do nothing for hot summers). So explain to me how such buildings reflect some sort of average temperature?

A globe is the sum of its regions. If the global average is changing it is because the regions are changing.

Supertroll

Infrastructure is indeed designed to cope with the extremes. The problem comes when the extremes change.

The most obvious example at present is rising sea levels. New York is spending £20 billion on raised storm surge defences. The US Navy is raising jetties. Miami Dade County is raising roads and installing pumps to cope with increasing tidal flooding.

The ideal sea level for these regions was the level when the original sea walls, jetties and roads were built.

EM. Get your facts right! Dade County flooding is due more to rainfall events than higher than usual tides. Hurricans and Nor'westers have always affected the area, and I strongly suggest building has disconnected drainage into the subsurface increasing severity and frequency of floods. Some parts of Dade County are also below extreme high tide, and flooding always get reported as if this is an unexpected phenomenon.

So, from the applicability of an optimum global temperature change the subject to local averages then local extremes then a bunch of poorly-picked sea level examples. Answer one and you are faced with another non sequitur.

Do you mean to tell us that global climate might not be determined by the concentration of the only component of the atmosphere over which we have convinced ourselves that we have some influence over?

Wow!

So, how are we going to control the climate, then? (Which, surely, we must be able to do, as so-o-o-o many politicians have told us that we can – and they have been told that we can by scientists whose income depends upon convincing these politicians that we can.)

EM, the US Navy need to recheck their own weather records, and ignore expert Climate Scientists.

"A brand-new U.S. Navy warship has not moved from Montreal since Christmas Eve and will spend the winter stuck in Canada due to cold and ice.

The USS Little Rock – unveiled in a ceremony on Dec. 16 in Buffalo, New York and attended by nearly 9,000 people – has not moved far since due to adverse weather conditions that kept the warship trapped at bay in Canada, the Toronto Star reported."

Recently talking to a Brazilian, who was glad that, this year, the temperatures in his home town were in the mid to high twenties, unlike last year, when they were in the low forties. Now, I know that this will be dismissed as anecdotal, and, this year, it is just weather… But I would ask: “Why isn’t the higher temperature similarly dismissed as “weather”? Why does it have to be “proof” of global warming?” It is interesting to note that it took over fifteen years for the “pause” to be acknowledged as a pause, yet it only takes less than three years to “prove” that the pause has finished. Surely, if it takes so long for one condition to be recognised, why does it not take the same time period for its converse to be recognised? If you are going to lay down rules, these rules have to be applied equally. (Also, another reason why I have long preferred the term “plateau” to “pause” – plateaux can have their own ups and downs while remaining plateaux; a pause can be declared finished at the slightest blip, even if it then continues paused)

There is also this observation: “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Radical rodent, like yourself I don't like pointing to a single year as an indicator of long term change. Look at the red line, the Lowess smoothing, which removes a lot of the short ternm variations.

You can see the red line goes flat for six years or so from 2005 to 2011. I'm quite happy to call it a pause or a hiatus or a plateau. What I would dispute is that it is more than short term variation. Has it stopped? Probably yes. A significant change would be 0.2C. Recent years are up 0.3C from the pause, so it is probably over.

The data might speak for themselves, but it is the sources of the data that are under suspicion – we are constantly being told one thing, while our own observations are telling us another. While you might be happy to ignore that conflict, Entropic man, I join many others in not being quite as gullible comfortable with what appears to be a quite brazen conflict.

Why should anyone trust data adjusted for Climate Scientists, when they still deny the existence of the LIA and MWP in accordance with Mann's Hockey Stick?

As a country bumpkin, I can look outside to see the natural progression of snowdrops, crocus and daffodils at this time of year. I do not believe in predictions made on the first sightings of cuckoos etc, though their arrival must reflect temperatures at their departure time and location.

So called "record" temperatures only seemed to be recorded within UHIs such as Heathrow Airport.

What has Climate Science done to prove it is worthy of trust? Increased reliance on Lewandowsky is an admission of failure.

Veteran Hurricane Forecasting Guru Predicts 2018 Season Could Even Be Worse Than Last Year’s Destructive Season

By P Gosselin on 25. January 2018

"Former NOAA, veteran meteorologist David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations predicts the coming 2018 hurricane season could be even worse than 2017’s already harsh season. The reason: natural cycles have the Atlantic in an active phase.

Last year Dilley predicted already in February that the southern tip of Florida would be hit by a major hurricane, one that would move northward through the state after making landfall, and that this southern Florida zone overall would enter the strongest and most active hurricane cycle since the period from 1945 to 1950 (65 to 70 years ago).

In his February, 2017 forecast he predicted the USA’s record 12-year run without a major hurricane hit would end in a big way. And it did.

Dilley’s forecasting is not based on global warming, but rather on natural weather cycles that the globe experiences over years, decades and even centuries. The 45-year veteran meteorologist boasts that his Global Weather Oscillations (GWO) forecast was “the only organization correctly predicting last year’s Atlantic hurricane season and destructive landfalls.”

Pro-EU greens are in shock, after the appointment of Bulgarian Environment Minister, Trump fan and Climate Skeptic Neno Dimov as President of the EU Environment Council.

A ‘Climate Skeptic’ Just Took Charge Of EU Environment Policy

Dave Keating, CONTRIBUTORJAN 25, 2018 @ 12:00 PM

Neno Dimov, the man who took over as the president of the EU’s Environment Council on Jan. 1, got an earful yesterday when he appeared before members of the European Parliament. Some of his past words were coming back to haunt him.

Lawmakers were aghast that a man who once called climate change a fraud and described himself as an opponent of climate science was going to be coordinating the EU’s environment policy for the next six months.

“You personally have been questioning climate change and whether human activity is the cause; you even challenged the theory of sea-level rise,” Dutch Liberal MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy said to him. Other MEPs demanded he clarify his personal stance.

Dimov demurred. He would not say anything about his personal opinion on climate change, noting only that there is a “political consensus” within the EU on climate change and that he will “keep this consensus alive.” However, he said, there is always room for “challenges and doubts.” A vocal admirer of U.S. President Donald Trump, Dimov has in the past said global warming is being used as a tool of intimidation.

This appointment has more to do with the EU’s unusual politics, rotating various positions between national governments, than any signal of a shift in EU policy.

Having said that, its amusing to watch greens squirm for once as the EU’s undemocratic system delivers them a serve. Perhaps a timely reminder that even green leaning tyrannies like the EU can stop being fun, when greens discover they have no democratic means to derail a decision they don’t like.

From about 1960 to 1990 with a trough in the mid-1970s, the MDO was in its cool phase, and it has been in its warm phase since 1990 that is expected to continue until about 2020. In the early-2020s, the cool phase of the MDO is expected to start with its trough in mid-2030s. The empirical evidence for this drop in global mean surface temperature would be the recovery of arctic sea ice and cooling of the Northern Hemisphere for the period from about 2020 to 2050.

When we start to see a steady increase in arctic sea ice in the 2020s that continues until the 2050s, what would happen to the “Theory of Man Made Global Warming”?

... From about 1960 to 1990 with a trough in the mid-1970s, the MDO was in its cool phase,

During the last MDO 'cool' phase, the global temperature increased by a shade under 0.4c, but the next one will magic up some global cooling? Riiight.

Wu et al, referenced by Girma Orssengo, PhD, estimated the cyclical influence on the trend at just 15%.

You portray our article that appeared recently in Climate Dynamics as arguing that up to a third of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century can be attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The referent for this statement is the fourth column of Table 2 in our article, which presents our attribution of the trends for the past 25 years, ending in 2008. In the third colum of that same Table, we attribute only about 15% of the 50-year trend to the AMO. OUr intent in presenting these statistics is not to contest the IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century (i.e., the 50-year) trend, but, rather, to question whether the acceleration in the rate of greenhouse warming has been as pronounced as implied by the graph presented in Figure TS.6 in the Technical Summary of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR-4),

Comment at https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/14/time-varying-trend-in-global-mean-surface-temperature

But the of course, publication at WUWT is a pretty solid guarantee of nonsense, and indeed Girma has a history of failed predictions.

The article is a critique of a 2011 WUWT piece by the same author along the same '60 year cycle' lines that gave predictions about the upper and lower bounds of future temperature. The temperature has since smashed through Girma's upper bound, falsifying his thesis.